Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[samiam1611]

Naturalistic pantheism is my bent, most certainly. My suspicion is that the ancient pantheism referred to as a hindrance to science was in part the inclination to see beings like ourselves as the inhabitants of natural phenomena - ultimately leading to the ideas of various ‘gods of’ these things - sun gods, water gods, air gods etc, etc, with the requisite names and personalities, who might be angered by the interference of ‘mere mortals’.

I don’t believe in an afterlife in the sense of some essence of ‘me’ going on after my body has died. The entity that I recognise and that others identify as me, I believe, will cease to exist. That which makes up this entity, the energy and matter of which my body now consists, will go on, perhaps eternally, and in time will go to form other entities. What those other entities may be I don’t know, but I feel a certain awe when considering that we are all made from the stuff of stars, and that we are privileged indeed to exist as conscious entities capable of considering such things.

A lot of the people on this site have expressed the opinion that without God or without an afterlife, there is no meaning to life; that it’s really depressing to think that there is no afterlife. As an atheist, of course I do not believe in an afterlife in any way, shape, or form, and this does not bother me one bit. Does it bother you that your essence will not move on when your body dies? (or do you not even believe in an essence?) Does your belief that your energy and matter might go on eternally serve as some sort of comfort to you, as heaven does for Christians? Or do you not feel a need for this sort of comfort, and just see matter and energy for what they are, natural, with no supernatural aspect?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

A lot of the people on this site have expressed the opinion that without God or without an afterlife, there is no meaning to life; that it’s really depressing to think that there is no afterlife. As an atheist, of course I do not believe in an afterlife in any way, shape, or form, and this does not bother me one bit.

Thats because you take your existential experiences for granted: you do not really see and accept the world as it truly is in the absence of God. Rather, you are in revolt against its truth as soon as you give meaning to the reality it expresses. You are a fantasist just like the Christian as soon as you accept the concept of humanity and the pursuit of a fulfilling life, except you have chosen a different kind of God that suits you better.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As an atheist, of course I do not believe in an afterlife in any way, shape, or form, and this does not bother me one bit.

I’ve got a couple of friends that believe in no deity but do believe in an afterlife and have some other spiritual beliefs. Not what one usually thinks of when they hear the label “atheist” but I find it to be an interesting disposition.

 

[Sair]

A lot of the people on this site have expressed the opinion that without God or without an afterlife, there is no meaning to life; that it’s really depressing to think that there is no afterlife. As an atheist, of course I do not believe in an afterlife in any way, shape, or form, and this does not bother me one bit. Does it bother you that your essence will not move on when your body dies? (or do you not even believe in an essence?) Does your belief that your energy and matter might go on eternally serve as some sort of comfort to you, as heaven does for Christians? Or do you not feel a need for this sort of comfort, and just see matter and energy for what they are, natural, with no supernatural aspect?

‘Supernatural’ has come to seem to me like a nonsense category of things. What does it even mean for something to be over and above the natural? Especially when, the more we learn, the more amazing nature is revealed to be.

It certainly used to bother me to think that perhaps I have no soul and willl simply disappear when I die. That was one of the last things I was able to let go of in the long process of deconversion. Then at some point it occurred to me that I was approaching it all in the wrong way. Life is not something of which I am being cheated by the fact of my death. Indeed, it is intriguing and wonderful that I have life at all. Without death, there would be no life. Life is change, and death is just one more change. And I have no reason to fear death and oblivion - the entity that is me will not be around to miss my life. I guess I do take some comfort from knowing that the substance of my body will go on, even if the configuration of that substance is no longer anything recognisable as ‘me’ - it reinforces the sense of connectedness with the world as a whole, that I am but one part of the great dance of time and change.

 

[Jkimbo]

I simply can not grasp the mind of atheism. I wonder if there are any real atheists? Could it be those who call themselves atheists are simply critical because they have not been totally convinced? I don’t believe one can be totally convinced there is no God. I can understand one lacks total convince there is one, but think there is always a part of them that keeps wondering, keeps the door open, which would explain why we often see atheists in Christian forums or Christian related threads in political forums. I think they never want to be too far off from God, even if they are not convinced. May God open their hearts!

 

[akasseb]

One has to wonder if atheism is a viable intellectual option. There has been a lot of discussion on this thread about the definitions of atheism and agnosticism. If we can in fact agree on universal definitions it doesn’t mean that all of us follow those definitions. For instance, an overwhelming percentage of atheists I encounter would state definitively that there is no God. Whether they believe this deep in their hearts is uncertain. Most of the professional atheists, however, will say they have seen no empirical proof of the existence of God and leave it at that. But we run into the problem of induction. Just because an individual has observed a world where God has not been visible does not prove that God does not exist. If you view a hundred white swans in a row (to use the famous example), it doesn’t mean that all swans are white. We all have to remember that we are individuals with finite minds at one place in the world and at one point in history. We have no way of observing all of the swans.

Agnosticism seems like the much more viable option. I was plunged into the darkest depths of skepticism for many years but could never cross the line into atheism because I didn’t view it as an intelligent option. Perhaps my mind is too too small.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There has been a lot of discussion on this thread about the definitions of atheism and agnosticism.

There’s a lot of discussion of definitions in this forum. What might be considered nuances in regular conversation has more significant impact in the topics being discussed and for several words you’ll find the definition isn’t taken for granted (ex: try using the word “should”, “must”, or “good” and you might find yourself being taken into a conversation about defining how you are using these words). Depending on the definition you use a phrase like “agnostic Christian” may be completely coherent or a nonsensical self contradicting phrase.

One has to wonder if atheism is a viable intellectual option…Most of the professional atheists, however, will say they have seen no empirical proof of the existence of God and leave it at that…Just because an individual has observed a world where God has not been visible does not prove that God does not exist

Stating that one has not yet seen proof/evidence is an intellectually honest thing to say. If one has never seen a black swan and states “I have yet to see evidence that black swans exists” the existence of a black swan doesn’t contradict their statement. Their statement communicates that the person has not had an experience with what was recognized as being a black swan.

Agnosticism seems like the much more viable option

Given the vastly different things that people attribute to deities ignosticism may be appropriate here.

 

[Perplexity]

akasseb: In the relevant literature, atheism is the denial of the existence of any God. Generally, the philosophers who hold this position argue that there is good reason to doubt any God’s existence. He doesn’t make any stronger a claim than the theist does.

Your degree of confidence in a position can be measured by how surprised you’d be if you discovered you were wrong. So, an atheist is someone who would be surprised if he discovered God exists, or more generally, surprised if he discovered any good reason to believe in God.

Here’s a simple illustration (I’m not necessarily advocating this): If the God Christians claim to believe in actually existed, then every evil which obtains is morally justified. But, we observe an incredible amount of horrendous evils which cannot be morally justified. (like the slow, tortuous death of a baby deer being scorched to death by a forest fire) So, the God Christians claim to believe in probably doesn’t exist. [Modus Tollens]

 

[Oreoracle]

Atheism is not ignorance of the concept of God.

Correct. A person can be quite familiar with the many conceptions of “God” and still be an atheist. However, ignorance of these conceptions does imply atheism.

Remember, I take an atheist to simply be a person that lacks belief in a deity. My premise is that each person, at one time or another, was young enough that they were ignorant of the concept of a deity. If they were ignorant of the concept of a deity, they certainly couldn’t believe in a deity. Therefore, everyone was an atheist at one time or another.

If you disagree with my definition of “atheism”, then that’s fine. Different people use different definitions of words. But if you accept my definition, then it follows that everyone was, at one time, an atheist.

 

[tonyrey]

‘Supernatural’ has come to seem to me like a nonsense category of things. What does it even mean for something to be over and above the natural?

That which transcends natural laws by being aware of them and able to control them.

Especially when, the more we learn, the more amazing nature is revealed to be.

Amazement does not justify the belief that nature is aware of itself and able to control itself unless you endow it with magical powers…

It certainly used to bother me to think that perhaps I have no soul and willl simply disappear when I die. That was one of the last things I was able to let go of in the long process of deconversion. Then at some point it occurred to me that I was approaching it all in the wrong way. Life is not something of which I am being cheated by the fact of my death. Indeed, it is intriguing and wonderful that I have life at all.

Indeed. A fact that should inspire awe, gratitude and appreciation of the immense gulf between purposeless, inanimate objects and purposeful, living organisms.

Without death, there would be no life.

Without life there would be no death is a more logical sequence…

Life is change, and death is just one more change. And I have no reason to fear death and oblivion - the entity that is me will not be around to miss my life.

You have reason to regret the triumph of gross injustice in an inconsequential life. That is why Camus called death “le supreme abus”.

I guess I do take some comfort from knowing that the substance of my body will go on, even if the configuration of that substance is no longer anything recognisable as ‘me’ - it reinforces the sense of connectedness with the world as a whole, that I am but one part of the great dance of time and change.

It is a danse macabre in your scheme of things! The meaningless dance of dust to dust, ashes to ashes and sparks in the dark. In such a context comfort in “connectedness” is wishful thinking based on a futile attempt to gloss over “the tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing…”

 

[tonyrey]

Correct. A person can be quite familiar with the many conceptions of “God” and still be an atheist. However, ignorance of these conceptions does imply atheism.

Remember, I take an atheist to simply be a person that lacks belief in a deity. My premise is that each person, at one time or another, was young enough that they were ignorant of the concept of a deity. If they were ignorant of the concept of a deity, they certainly couldn’t believe in a deity. Therefore, everyone was an atheist at one time or another.

If you disagree with my definition of “atheism”, then that’s fine. Different people use different definitions of words. But if you accept my definition, then it follows that everyone was, at one time, an atheist.

A person who is ignorant of the concept of God is more accurately described as a pagan. An atheist is a person who is aware of the meaning of the term and does not believe that it corresponds to reality - unlike an agnostic who suspends belief. Children who have not reached the age of reason are not in any of these categories.

 

[ASimon]

To answer the question of the OP, I think the biggest reason you don’t see much debate or conflict among atheists and/or agnostics is that neither atheism nor agnosticism are truly systems of belief. They’re both misnomers in that regard. A self-defined as a person of faith leaves the door open for many interpretation of various bits of doctrine and scripture. Compared to that, atheism and agnosticism are both virtually content-free.

 

[Oreoracle]

A person who is ignorant of the concept of God is more accurately described as a pagan.

I don’t think so, unless you’re using an obscure definition of “pagan”. According to Wikipedia, paganism is a blanket term for polytheistic religions. A person being ignorant of a conception of a deity certainly doesn’t imply that they believe in many deities. In fact, they would believe in none, which would make “atheist” the more appropriate label, at least by my reckoning.

An atheist is a person who is aware of the meaning of the term and does not believe that it corresponds to reality - unlike an agnostic who suspends belief.

And that’s okay if those are the definitions you use. However, those are not the most commonly used definitions. More often than not, an atheist is taken to be a person who doesn’t believe in a deity and an agnostic is taken to be a person who believes we can’t gain knowledge pertaining to deities. Those are the definitions I use. The qualification that a person must be aware of conceptions of deities isn’t usually added to the definition of “atheism”, and so I exclude it from my definition.

 

[samiam1611]

implicit atheism: “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism#Implicit_atheism

 

[akasseb]

My premise is that each person, at one time or another, was young enough that they were ignorant of the concept of a deity. If they were ignorant of the concept of a deity, they certainly couldn’t believe in a deity. Therefore, everyone was an atheist at one time or another.

Regardless of whether your premise is true or not, I do not think it is in an atheist’s best interest to class his beliefs with the lack of belief in children who have not yet reached the age of reason. When I was an infant I also had no concept of advanced mathematics or the scientific method, or ten thousand other things necessary for society to flourish.

Catholic theology teaches that man has a natural desire to see God. If you do not believe this, then you must explain why adults do have a concept of God that wasn’t present in early childhood (assuming your premise).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

However, ignorance of these conceptions does imply atheism.

No, it implies ignorance of the concept of God. Atheism, is a conscious rejection of the existence of God, and it has always been understood as that. You merely want to redefine the word to suit your agenda.

A very small child does not have a concept of humanity, does that mean they don’t believe in humanity? No. It simply means that they are ignorant of the concept.

Is there something wrong with you?

 

[greylorn]

To answer the question of the OP, I think the biggest reason you don’t see much debate or conflict among atheists and/or agnostics is that neither atheism nor agnosticism are truly systems of belief. They’re both misnomers in that regard. A self-defined as a person of faith leaves the door open for many interpretation of various bits of doctrine and scripture. Compared to that, atheism and agnosticism are both virtually content-free.

I must disagree, from my readings of atheist writers and in particular from my experiences arguing theology with atheists, particularly hard scientists.

Agnostics are simply those who cannot make up their mind. I’ve never met one who appeared interesting enough to converse with, so I don’t know them. So for this brief conversation they are irrelevant.

Atheists almost universally have beliefs about the beginnings of things and the nature of man. They believe that the universe began with a Big Bang, because that’s what cosmologists say. They believe that life evolved according to the principles of Darwinian evolution theory, because that’s what they were taught. They believe that the first living cell was formed in all its wondrous complexity spontaneously, from some mysterious combination of mud, ammonia, and methane, by a process still awaiting a legitimate explanation, because they believe scientists who say that it must have happened that way.

Their beliefs are all bunk! Read the recent (April/May?) Scientific American article about problems with the Big Bang. Study up on abiogenesis breakthroughts. Perform your own calculations for the probability of the evolution of a single small human gene by the random assembly of nucleotides. Mine produces a nice, scientific, mathematically verifiable probability of one chance in 10[sup]-542[/sup]. Those are ugly odds, which get worse when the average gene size is used instead of the smallest, and downright absurd when all 23,000 human genes are included in the calculations.

All the atheists I’ve encountered share one thing in common— they all disbelieve in the same God! The same God as the God of Christianity, in whom I also disbelieve, although I am decidedly not an atheist. I imagine that the same rule applies elsewhere— that in Arabia, atheists disbelieve in Allah, and in India they disbelieve in Shiva.

With a few exceptions, atheists are simply the mindless followers of a different camp. They get their particular set of beliefs from perfessers instead of prophets.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

akasseb

Regardless of whether your premise is true or not, I do not think it is in an atheist’s best interest to class his beliefs with the lack of belief in children who have not yet reached the age of reason.

Yet I would wager that most atheists arrived at their atheism before reaching their full mental and emotional adulthood. Many atheists freely admit this, identifying the year of adopting atheism as somewhere in their mid to late teens. What that suggests to me is that atheism is not an infantile, but rather a juvenile, psychological condition … tied up in many instances with rebellion against authority of any kind. This view is held by many people who have analyzed the genesis of atheism, including Dr. Paul Vitz in his excellent book Faith of the Fatherless. That doesn’t mean it’s true in every instance, but it certainly suggests that it’s not an absurd conclusion to draw.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Atheists almost universally have beliefs about the beginnings of things and the nature of man. They believe that the universe began with a Big Bang, because that’s what cosmologists say.

I believe the same thing, and I am a Catholic. This has nothing to do with atheism. The scientific evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming.

They believe that life evolved according to the principles of Darwinian evolution theory, because that’s what they were taught.

I believe the same thing, and I am a Catholic. This has nothing to do with atheism. The scientific evidence for evolution according to Neo-Darwinian synthesis is overwhelming.

They believe that the first living cell was formed in all its wondrous complexity spontaneously, from some mysterious combination of mud, ammonia, and methane, by a process still awaiting a legitimate explanation, because they believe scientists who say that it must have happened that way.

I also believe the first living cell was formed spontaneously, and I am a Catholic and a scientist (a biochemist). This has nothing to do with atheism. By now the scientific evidence has made an origin by natural causes highly probable, see my article for the leading evolution website Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

However, the first living cell was simple, not complex, see my article.

Perform your own calculations for the probability of the evolution of a single small human gene by the random assembly of nucleotides. Mine produces a nice, scientific, mathematically verifiable probability of one chance in 10[sup]-542[/sup].

Your probability is not scientific, since you have not understood the science of evolution. Mutations are random, but cumulative natural selection feeding on them is not. There is no ‘random’ assembly of something like a single small human gene.

Those are ugly odds, which get worse when the average gene size is used instead of the smallest, and downright absurd when all 23,000 human genes are included in the calculations.

Indeed, it gets worse and downright absurd when someone does not understand how evolution works.

With a few exceptions, atheists are simply the mindless followers of a different camp.

With that I agree.

 

[ASimon]

I must disagree, from my readings of atheist writers and in particular from my experiences arguing theology with atheists, particularly hard scientists.

Agnostics are simply those who cannot make up their mind. I’ve never met one who appeared interesting enough to converse with, so I don’t know them. So for this brief conversation they are irrelevant.

Atheists almost universally have beliefs about the beginnings of things and the nature of man. They believe that the universe began with a Big Bang, because that’s what cosmologists say. They believe that life evolved according to the principles of Darwinian evolution theory, because that’s what they were taught. They believe that the first living cell was formed in all its wondrous complexity spontaneously, from some mysterious combination of mud, ammonia, and methane, by a process still awaiting a legitimate explanation, because they believe scientists who say that it must have happened that way.

My point was that there is nothing about atheism that demands you subscribe to any single understanding about the nature of the cosmos (beyond rejecting the idea that a God created it). If I, as an atheist, believe that Universe began with a Big Bang, and I encounter a fellow atheist who believes the Universe is somehow past-eternal, this disagreement does not touch upon our common belief that no God or Gods exist or ever have existed.

‘Atheism’ just doesn’t leave atheists that much to argue about, at least amongst themselves.

All the atheists I’ve encountered share one thing in common— they all disbelieve in the same God! The same God as the God of Christianity, in whom I also disbelieve, although I am decidedly not an atheist. I imagine that the same rule applies elsewhere— that in Arabia, atheists disbelieve in Allah, and in India they disbelieve in Shiva.

Atheists disbelieve in all Gods.